https://iai.tv/articles/escaping-cosmol ... -auid-1964
Now read the rest of the article. It’s VERY well written. Here is the conclusion …Escaping cosmology’s failing paradigm
Why we may be radically wrong about the universe’s size and expansion
4th November 2021
Bjørn Ekeberg | Philosopher of science, author of Metaphysical Experiments
Louis Marmet | Adjunct professor at York University, Canada
There is a great paradox haunting cosmology.
The science relies on a theoretical framework that struggles to fit and make sense of the observations we have but is so entrenched that very few cosmologists want to seriously reconsider it.
When faced with discrepancies between theory and observation, cosmologists habitually react by adjusting or adding parameters to fit observations, propose additional hypotheses, or even propose “new physics” and ad hoc solutions that preserve the core assumptions of the existing model.
Today, there is increasing critical attention on some problematic parts of the Standard Model of Cosmology. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation theory are parts of the standard theoretical framework that remain empirically unverified - and where new observations prompt ever more questions.
However, little questioning is heard of the many unverifiable core assumptions that make up our model of the universe.
Before any physics or mathematics is involved, the framework is based on a series of logical inference leaps - we count 13 (http://cosmology.infom) - that works as an invisible premise for the theory. Of these, some are not testable or are barely plausible. But they are necessary as simplifying conditions that enable scientists to articulate a scientifically consistent theory of the universe.
What if any of these hidden inferences happen to be fundamentally wrong?
In this article, we would like to focus on just a few of these unverified core assumptions that make up today's standard cosmology, in order to raise a question:
Has the current standard model become orthodoxy because it is very well-founded and proven - as the consensus view would have it? Or is it rather orthodoxy because it’s become ‘paradigm stuck’ - that is, path dependent and unable to generate a viable alternative?
YES! I'd like to see them explain the tube of helically wound magnetic plasma filaments that observations say our solar system is inside? And explain the helically wound plasma filaments that distance galaxies appear to be inside? I suggest they will not be able to do so without re-examining the core principles of astrophysics and cosmology. It's time they did. Just saying …Over decades of scientific labor the Standard Model of Cosmology has become a multi-layered construction that resembles the children's game of Jenga - where the stability of the upper layers is dependent on the layers below.
The ‘crisis in cosmology’ often referred to today usually focuses on either Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Inflation - all ideas that caught on more than 40 years ago and that have become perpetuated in scientific research. But these are Jenga blocks that rest on the core theories at the base of the structure, where more problems reside.
… snip …
It is common scientific practice to add to or tweak the auxiliary hypotheses rather than question the core. For a scientist doing research, it is more constructive to propose "new physics" that is compatible with the hard core framework than to call fundamentals into question - at least if you want to get funding, publications, graduate students, and tenure.
Because cosmology as a professional discipline really only came about with the invention of the Big Bang Theory in the mid-20th century it has effectively been the only major operative hypothesis for astronomical research. Therefore it has become the only model that cosmologists can get funded to research. The observational evidence it produces and accumulates is usually interpreted in its favour. This gives it the appearance of solidity while giving cosmologists a false sense of security.
However, it would take a lot of scientists, funding and time to be able to produce a reasonable alternative theory that could account for almost nine decades of observations using the Big Bang framework. As a result, cosmology seems locked into a ‘zombie state’ - path dependent and stuck - and too big to fail.
As astrophysicist Stacy McGaugh says in the context of dark matter theory, “like a fifty year mortgage, we are still basically stuck with this decision we made in the 1980s… we’re stuck still pounding these ideas into the heads of innocent students, creating a closed ecosystem of stagnant ideas self-perpetuated by the echo chamber effect.”
McGaugh and Hossenfelder are among a growing group of scientists concerned about the ‘dark stuff’ who are making progress in questioning some of the most critical theories in cosmology.
Their effort may help the new generation of cosmologists realize that if these decade-old theories can be overturned, there is hope in solving cosmology’s deeper problems by re-examining the core principles of cosmology.
